The Sun. — London, England, 1810-05-19 00:00:00

i i I art Right . Hon. Gt..ntlernan in 1808. He ci for aspecification' of the articles on which were imposed, shswing-how the smile 'were ugrnerited, and .the net produce of the new duties aird the Infgmentalion tl. rein, froM toth toter 1808 to 1809, and also the 'amount of the Stamp Duties. The CHANCELLOR Of the XCIIEQUER would not 'object to*the'tnotirill, btli, at Ate same time he did not t::i from the woediog of it, the Hon. Gyotlernan would obtain what he requited ,to prove his asser- Mr. TIERNEY recommended the serious atten tion of the 'Hance to second reading of the Stamp Duty. Bill, and hipped that the accounts now moved for . would he produced before the se cond reading. He was corvinced - that their pro dui Lion would justify the House in not addpting The,motion, after Some observations in explana tion from Mr. Hosskisson, Mr. Tierney, and the Chancellor of the .xthequer, was arced 'to: Mr. ROSE brought in a Bill to prohibit the impor tation of foreign Silks, Crapes, and Tiffanies, which was read a,first time, and - ordered for a second read ing. on Monday. .. - • Mr. WIIARTON brongnt in a Bill for raising the Sum of 1 2,000,0001. by Loan. The Bill was read a first time, and nr6red tube read a Second, time on 'Monday. .. The Scdtcb Suprann,flation was read a 6rst•time.—To be read a second trine on Mon day. sIR F. BURDETT. Mr. Davies GIDDY brought' up the Report df the Seleet Committee apointed to search, for prece dents in the case of Sir Francis Burdett. The Re port having been given in at the table, was , read by the Clerk. The Report stated in substance, that the Commit tee had bound various precedents of commitments which . it would not be necessary to detail that in _ point of fan the power of committal was too clear . to be called into question ; that the cases to which they had referred and seleated, uniformly treated such libels as the one for which- Sir. F. Burdett was imprisoned, es contempt of the authority and-Privi lege of the House, whether such libels originated with a Member of the House, or with a person not a Member; that these privileges were traced back by the Committee to the earliest periods ; and, it appeared ip them, that immemorial usage con firmed them. This general power of comqiittnent was, asserted by the House in the resolutions of 1701; in the conference with the House of Lords (in the case of Ashby v. White, in 1704), al 7 ; thotigh such privilege had been denied by , that House, 'and contested ; et, it was confirmed and admitted atterw'ards, and ,received the further con - . firmation of the opinions of the Twelve Judges— that on the question being brought, before the Court of King's Bench in the case of Murray; it was ad mitted—agaio, in the Common Pleas, in the case of Crosby, and also in the case of -Oliver—the pri vileges-of Parliament had been subsequently con firmed by the decisiOn in the case of Benjamin Flower, for a libel on the House of Lords. In *bort, that there was not alingle decision to' the . contrary in any ot the Codas of Law, and that these Courts had uniformly coinmitted persons for con tempt of their authority. Amongst the Judges so deciding and concurring in opinion, there were to be found men of the roost exalted characters, distin guished for legal learning, alad possessing upright and enlightened minds- - --meO who were friends to the constitution of the country, and to the liber ties of the subject. The Report further went on to state that the 1 tw of Parliament; in the opinion of the Committee, is the lex terns, and consecpuently essentially necessary for securing . the liberty of the people, and for preserving their rights. The Report was then laid on the table. Mr. DAVIES GIDDY then moved, that the Re port be printed. • Me.. HORNER could not suffer this motion to be put without expressing his surprise that the Com mittee should think it necessary to go into argument in their Report, to shew the utili y of the House possessing-privileges. In his opinion, they were baldly wartauted in so doing; he was so particular • ly struck when he heard' it read, that he thought the House could not let 'it pass without commenting on it. Was it necessary, he would ask,' for the Committee to resort to analocfouscasesln the Courts „ of Law to. strew that tile privileges of this House were to be supported. Did those privileges depend' upon decisions in Law Courts ? The analogy‘Ought not to be brought into discussion; and in support of that opinion, he might ;weal to many Gentlemen who remembered those great sages, now no more, whether they were not of the same 'opinion, He depredated the idea of the Committee going into general reasoning on the utility of Parliamentary pri vilege, or 'of contrasting the cases in the Courts_of Law with any case of privilege decided in this House. There was another objeClion to the Report, and that was the statement of ono of the cases being strength 'ened in consequence of a conference with the Lords, when that - House admitted the right. Was that an 'argument ? Did the power of this House need such an argurra nt ? or, indeed, ought the HoUse to think that as a strong reason fOrconstd:ring their right of privilege founded,uponjustice ), On the contrary, he was convinced the House - would never admit that they do not exercise the privilege in their own - right. Mr- Rose desired the Clerk to- read the instruc tions to the Committee. t The Ckrk accordingly re rd theM, by which they Were de-ired to ‘,‘ report their opinions" in additio n . to the precedents they might find. Mr. Ross then obseeved, if ,it leas intended to objed - to the printing of the Report orto discuss it, it would be more, regular to ;nolo t a day for that discussion ; the ComMittee on their report had done no more than their duty; as it appeared, from the in struaions which they received from the "nouse. They had reported their opinions. He could not conceive hoW the privileges of the House could be • weakened by refusing a support of them to the opi . nions of some of the most enlightened and able • Ju-Iges that ever sat on the Bench. Their opinions ' _when the privileges of the Hou,se were questioned were desirable. Mr. 'WILBERFORCE agreed. with the Right Hon. Ger Veman that it would be better to reserve the . eocussion to 'oine other Opportunity. Having been on the Committee, be could. not hear 80 serious a charge as that - of the Hnn. 'Gentleman tititOut making some observations. The - insinuation of the Hon. Gemtletnan, that the Committee wished ~to coMpromise the . privtleges of the House did app'ear to him surprking ; and he could not account' for the assertion until a new light broke on his (Mr. W.'s) mind, which' shewed him how the_ matter stood; he then found that the state of party had induced . the. Hon. Gentleman. to 'make the observations.— , It was-very natural that a, report made by a Com mittee, of which none of the Gentlemen usually at tached to the party to which the Hon. Gentleman belonged, should nut be received' without objeaion. Was ir, however, compromising the dignity of the House for the Committee to declare that the House of Lords, originally denying the,extent of privilege of this House, had subsequently, on a'conference, confessed their errur.and 'admitted the right to exist entire ? With.respea. to the analogous cases in the Courts of Law,. was it not something to have those privileges acknowleged by Judges who; as it had been truly said, were an honour to their, country ? Did it anot tend to strengthen thein, 'and did it not shew that .they were admitted to the fullest extent. He thought, therefore, under these circumstances, the Committee deserved well of the House. Mr. PONSONBY admitted that he-w.asuot fully pre. pared to speak on the subjed, not having been in the H. use when the report was read ; he had, how- ever, heard the speech of his Hon. Friend (Mr. Horner), to which he gave his most unqualified ap-', probation. With respea to the assertion of the Hon. Gentleman who spoke last, that a new light bad broken in upon him, and that he could account for the opposition of his Hon. Friend when he consi dered the state of party, he bad thus much to say-- : - that he admired the candour which induced the ob servations of the Hon. Gentleman, whom the House . would recollea belonged to no party, but to'that party which professed to bey superior to all parties in point of virtue and patriotism. Were be, Mr. P. inclined-to make observations upon the conduct of every Gentleman, he might say that there were persons in this House who were. continually on the watch, balancing between all other parties, and waiting with anxious expeetation how to. decide, till catching the turn of popular opinion,•and seeing the_ scale was preponderating this or that way, would Then venture opinions. There were such Gentle men ; but they were always, for the reasons he had stated, to be found on "the prudential side of. the question. Were, he, however, to make such an ob servation upon the conduct of the Hon. Gentleman it would be untrue, but st 11 the Hon. Gentleman stood. expdsed to.the observation as much as if he adually was'one of the persons described.—Having made, these observations, he would now state his principal reason for rising, whieli was to objeal to the printing of the Report, until the House had an oppoitunity of being acquainted with the contents. He therefore suggested that it should lie on the table for three'or lour days. He thought if . it was printed, and. circulated as it would be, by rapid ..stages throughout the country, it might- have the effiaof making an undue impression on the public mind. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought . the Hon. Gent. was under Vtne misapprehension .When he proposed delay. . The Report would be entered on the Journals, and might be considered, notwithstanding the Order should be made for print ing it. The Right Hon. Gentleman had complain ed that he had not heard the Report read. W as i t .not astonishing, then, he should give as he had done, his unqualified, approbation to the speech of ft:s Hon: Friend (Mr. Horner), when he confessed, at the same moment, that he didnot 'kno'vv _what the Report contained. It was an act of-that sort of friendship and kindness which persons enter taining similar opinions with the Right Hon. Gen tleman, were, as be sapposed, in the practice of paying to each other. The Right Hon. Gentleman had not coat& forward to give any opinion at an. early stage of the inquiry, but at last he bad so done, and the manner in which he had given that opinion entitled him to credit, but nevertheless he had not shown himself an adive or a forward de fender of the privileges of the House, at the same time he would readily admit that Gentlemen on the opposite side.of the,House were disposed to support their rights and privileges. He regretted that the Hon. Gentleinan had not, instead of now objecting to the report, - comeforward at an earlier period, and given his legal opinion, especially as another Learn ed Gentleman of great legal'authority had advanced opinions against the formation of the Committee. When the House had decided that the Committee shontd.report their Opinions, surely it was not for_ Gentlemen to quarrel with the Comthittee for hay ing. so done. Ii the Hon. Gentleman thought they had done wrong, he should have interfered before or should have objected to the first report. The Right Hon. Gentleman'then referred to that report, and contended that the beneficial result of the in qUiry, - ivas the laying- before the House a sort of history, with the opinions of great Constitutional Lawyers; all concurring. in supporting the privileges of the House. In the conflict which occurred be tween the two Houses, as noticed in the' report, although at first the HoUse of Lords denied the .right of privilege, yet they afterwards admitted it. These opinions and' admission went greatly to strengthen the claim. But he was satisfied that in dependent of these, sthe House in themselves w e re right in asserting their just privileges. All that the Committee intended by • their report was to shew that great legal and constitutional authorities bore them out in their. claim. Did the Hon. Gentleman recollect how the power of the House had been attacked ? . Was it not right then for the Com mittee to enter into the reason and expediency of exercising' that power. Upon the whole the Right Hon. Gentleman saw no just ground of objection to the report. Mr. PONSONBY and the CHANCELLOR Of the EX cHEQUER mutually explained. Mr. LOCK HART rose to guard the House against the introduction into 4he Report, after the citation of a decision in a Until of Law, of the phrase, " that their • privileges were confirmed. thereby," an expression of so exceptionable a nature, that, in his opinion, the Report ought to be sent back to the Committee, for the purpose of having it expunged. Lord MILTON expressed himself to be very much of the opinion of his Honourable and Learned Friend with resped to the improprieties contained iu the report. WIIITIiREAD declared, that .from the state of the appendix, cOntaining complicated erasures of the pen and pencil, it appeared to him• to be in:- possible • for any printer - to - know, what .to print or what not. .He by no means imputed an intention of deceiving the House to the Chairman of the Com mittee ; but be denied that the judgment said to be given by Wilmot had attually . beengiven it had only been intended•to be delivered, he having died before the period at which it ought to have been delivered. He instanced a vatiety of alterations• in the report, some of the most complicated -nature, which he thought did not shewthat.resped to the House which he thought a Committee of Privileges ought to evince. It was a most Unintelligible. far rago. If a bill were brought into the House in such a state, the Speaker should return it. Prece dents, some wholly eraqed, others partially, of others only the dates lett. Before any Gentleman • voted for the - printing of this appendix, he hoped he would take the trouble to look at it. Mr. D. GIDDY defended the mode in which the appendix was brought forward, and which was as cribable 16 the promptness with which the Coin mittee were desirons of producing it. It was.con ceived better to present it in its present state than to delay it till Monday, it having been unders'ood that the Members of the Committee would cortea . the proof sheets. He admitted the accuracy of the observation of the Hon. Gentleman, with respea , to the judgment of Lord Chief Justice Wilmot, and I}ad no doubt that that would have been among the cor 7 reetions in the proof sheets. If the House thought proper to send the appendix back to the Committee, he should have no objeaion to it, although he was• not aware that it had been usual to make a fair transcript of-any paper of this sort, which was seldom or never read in the House until sent to the printer. Mr. C. WYISiNE condemned the cifing of the opi nion of any individual of what authority soever in the report.. He objeded to putting on the 'Jour nals of the House analogies from the .pra&ice of Courts of Justice in support of, the privileges of the House of Commons. The ground on ,Which those priNi:leges must stand or fall was the praEtice of their predecessors. Adverting to the correction of the statement respeding Chiet Justice Wilrribt, which the Hon. Chairman of the Committee said would take place . in the proof . sheets, he expressed his doubt of the power of any Member to.make such a correalon after a Report had been la:d on the table. He thought .it. would be much ,better to return the Report and Appendix to the Committee, arid movt:d that the Report be re-committed. The SPEAKEi, however, observed, that after hav ing allowed the Report to be laid on the table, it could not be sent off again the same day. After a few observations from Mr. ROSE, The SPEAXER suggested, that the report should be ,taken off the table again. It certainly was drawn up in a manner that did not entitle it to be received, and it ought unquestionably to be recommitted.. • Sir:S. ROMILLY contended, that the private•opi nion of a Judge, even of tech .a high characteris Chief Justice. Wilmost, ought not to Ilay.e been in troduced into the report at all. The - qtiestion which the Corn(mittee had to_ examine, was not whether , the Courts of Law, or that House, had a right .to commit, but ,whether the decision of the House ought to be questioned any where but in the House. It was not incumbent on the. Cerniriit tee to have reported opinions, bpt as they did report, he regretted that they had not given a more distinct opinion on the case 'of 13nsliell: He accounted for his not having attended on the Committee ; because he did not think much additional information could possibly be produced by it, and because his opinion- ' on the general.sithiect was .sb much in opposition w that of the other Members that he did riot wish by attending to createan useless impediment. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL regretted that - his Hon. and Learned Friend had not attended and •eplighten edi the Committee by his opinions. The best-way of arriving at truth was by the collision of opposite sentiments. He conceived that it would have been much better to attend the Committee than .to have lain by until the report was deliver e d , and then to attack it. He "was astonished to hear his Hon. and Learned Friend say, that the right of the House to commit was not one of the topics referred to the consideration of tl:e Committee. Considering the extensive information, and high 'character of . his Hon. and Learned Friend, he could not but lament that he, of all his profession, should stand up alone to deny that which was so well established by reason, by precedent, and analogy. the right of the HoUse was supported by uninterrupted precedents, by the analogy, of the praCtice of Courts_ ofJustice, and • by the unvaried opinion of, the greatest, men of every age. Against this triple e..nCtion he had heard no shadow of an argument. An Hon. Gentleman had . objeded to the reference in the report to the opinions of individuals, forgetting that on a former discu;sion he, had himself adduced the opinion of individuals in support of his assertions. Hecontended i that al though thejudgment of Lord Chief Justice Wilmot, had not actually been delivered; it was as legitimate an opinion as the written opinions of Lord Hales and Lord Coke: It had been even to the world by his son; and its authenticity was unquestionable. He trusted his Hon. and Learned Fiend would also stand alone in his opinion that it was competent to any Court of Justice to cOntrour or correct any deci sion of the House of Commons. ; As to Bushell's •case, it was by no means an analogy. , It• was, no -contempt ; murder might as well have.been called contempt: It a Court of Justice actually comfnitted for contempt, would his Hon. 2nd Learned Friend say that any other Court had a right ,-to correa their proceedings ? So with the House" of COM.: mons. It was not competent to any Court to con travene t heir decisions. if this were once admhted it would be wholly destructive of the pri, lieges and in dependence of the House. • Sir S. ROMILLY explained. _ _ Mr. PoNsoNBY expressed his convinion that the privileges of the 'House slood 9n the Law of Par ment, and were not to be defended :by any•anolOgy to the proceedings of the Courts blow. Sir T. TURTON reprobated the whole of the pro ceedings in defence of their privileges, which' he maintained, with the Hon. and Leai ned Gentleman who had jost,sat down ) s:uud'on the law and usoge of Parliament alone. • The report was then ordered to be recom;nitted to the same Courupittee. • CATHOLIC QUESTION, Mi. HERBERT, adverting to the lateness of the hour, and to the prior discussion which Was expe6ted, Suggt!sted to a Right Hon. Gentleman (:ylr. Grat tan) the expediency of postponing .his motion on the Catholic Question ; a motion in. which the interests of five millions of people were involved, and.'whicli ought therefore, to undergo a fell and deliberate dis cussion. - , Mr, GRATTAN replied, that he was very anxious that his important subject should be fully discussed. If the debate on the Motion of the Noble Lord near him (Lord A. Hamilton) should not extend to•a very late hour, it was his intention, at le.ist, toopen the question, and after a certain period of the night to propose its adjournment. • RESoLU - 00/IS OF THE HOUSE. Lord CPATLEItE ACIT W)Slled to ask the Noble Lord opposite . 'to him a question, the answer to which would regulate his cordu& on the approach ing discussion. What he was anxious to know was', wriether the [notion which the Noble Lord was .bout to subthit to the House; was of Such a nature as to require that he shotildictire .from the House during the debate ? Lord A. 1-lAmtt.Toll replied, .that his motion would by no means require Such - a proceeding on thepart of the Noble . totd-. Er went simply - to expunge the resolutions of the .'.25 t h of April. Oa giving _notice of his motion, be had expressly stated that h was his intention not, to revive the origina' question, but merely to propose the erasure irotn the Journals of .Resolutions, which appearing in consistent with one another, were necessarily dero gatory from the honour and .dgnity of the House. Refore he proceeded, he would request the Clerk to read the 'Resolutions in question. • _ . The Clerk accordingly rad the - Resolutions; which were -those relating to the c i ondat of Lora Castlereagh, in the appointment to a writership in Lord A. HAMILTON• then proceeded. In mg,. the House resolved that it was their duty to guard against, any " attempt" to influence the . eleaton of Members -of Parliament. But in the. Resolution , which had been just read, the censure of the House was mitigated on the ground that the attempt of the sNohle LOrd had not , been carried into effea• These resolutiOns were consequently . inconsistent with each other, and this inconsistency had been thrown in . the teeth of the' House in all the va - • rious terdonsoeineeS and . petitions which had late ly been presented. As the subjeft on , which the Resolutions were founded had been origi' nally brought under the of . the flouw by himself ; he felt it to be his pecoliar duty to pro" pose to theeHouse,to re-establish their chara6ter 101 consistency, 'by expunging those resolu' ions. Its this proposition. he Was aauated wholly by.a wish :to uphold - the true dignity of the House by endea vouring to reconcile,their dottrine and their prac-. tice. ,The last Seksion was a kind of alta in th'' history of that House. . - Up to that period, the chase and sale of seats in Parliament had never bee n Openly avowed. Shortly Jt'ter the adoptioo . resolutions in question, 'a Bill was, brouot in to pre' vent a pratlice whiclt antecedently to that period tlie House not orily.disclaimed, but would not bear t ° hear alluded to. How far • their condoet had 5;3 0- tioned the-imputation he would not pre:end ro say'. - but he was clearly of opinion, that the inconsisten e t of the resolutions, which was a plain matter °f •fO!. demanded corret ion. If any one thought that ' c , would be more prudent to leave a part of the resold; tioni untouched, . to such a proposition, he shoW" ;have no objet ion ; bin he maintained , the ne cessitY of expunging from the Journal.; that part as least i tl which 'the inconsistency consisted. However 9: 1 ; pWsant it might be- for the House, to rctr" their opinions, it was muzh better that di e t, 'should do so than that they should submit to "t%'', imputations • cast, upon them, in spurt of 111 ; opinion be' adverted to the case of Mr. Alexaod Davison, who • was proSecuted and, fined fa similar offence:, and to the petition from Hat - shire r san which latter occasion, the lion. Ge0", ,0 men - opposite talked loudly of the impropriety of exercise of influence do Parlamentary elect L a also alluded to the resolution against Lord Cilat hol l j on'which occasion, 'although the Noble Lora ilt e j the Right Hon. Geoilemian apposite ex6. ll l )3t i Lord Chatham front 'any unconstitutional intent they voted' for a criminatory resolutiOn aOinst 1 011 1 He' was anxious that the Howe should regain il: (- 4 1 character (or consistency. Several pe;itioos . been rejected in consequence of t heifeontainiog s ie , s timents on this subject, which \ were, neverth` ,t founded on fact. The'House ooght not to all ° `,,o , to be- 41 the rower of any il-disposed per-ctrl LL ) that they..had one practice on their JutirtrAls , anpther ut judging on- the petition& presi nte d them. The only: wise course which, io the House could pursue, and by which alone "; 0 1 0 couldmatntain their real - dignity was to e spuog e reSUllitibnS, which, as the Journals were .-tro t j e j printed., would not in that respe c t be altc with any prat tical inconvenience,. He 1136eico moved " that the entry be erased from OW nals," Loon CASTLEREAGH felt himself per;onßUY cerned,iwthe tpeitiorl, though N.obic LO4 l thought fit to direct a° 39.' NO' decision of the House. t ;; , ;linst ;on,. ' r oe o t) ble Lord-eat:lJ only io say tint jt le the House had come to condue.; u oe wLich it was in proper for 'then, in come to 011 J I of these two.. grounds. ' Ette.r t; the) "L ere „' tJ. competent so to decide , or tti.it libt=r;;ve conic tocv - soch `a - decision, they „ lig ht to c;unle. to such a one in inS l i i e Lnler 'of his speech, tile Noble LORI had p a rti - c , .:lArlY l : e ir deavoured to demonstrate to- tile lion,e !.tecision was impt - oper.. He had contet;A"i resolution of t779Vrecluded "them fro o:thvb,, ' o' the circumstances .of any case that tit: coo'', fore thernp(that nature, and only left the: l) ts`'' . ; ; ‘ ; ,l , cute. the w, - inflid the ptinishment.de ll3 .; ll. against an offender on the individual acct-W'b' of rite Noble Lord had wished his moi;on not t° , co o' a personal nature,. instead takiOg, the' hoe E V: duet he .had - choseh, he would:' h ave brot l s' ) ; the' Standing. Order, under the consideration 01 lo ve House. .He spetned to think they oughi w 01 21 the power of, judging of the cireurnstances no, nested the case on which ihey were W e r o 3' nonnce jud : ;rnt. nt, bur that whatever the stances . annexed .to it might be, they 51 1 001 " i co , the punishment due to au offender on -Abe T~`~ ' E